Tromp
-
Posts
1,803 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Tromp
-
-
Wow, nice WOT there. At the very least, this should be popcorn worthy OsRavan, thanks for that.
To comment on a couple of things that stood out for me:
In an OOC sense I think poorly of those who twist themselves inside and out trying to score OWF points. I can look at a thread on the OWF and before I even open it I know exactly what everyone will be saying.You're not the only one who thinks like that, I'd assume anyone who knows how things work around here will have (had) that thought at some point.
*Note, here comes an IC comment*:
> Says the above
>> Is allied to MK
>>> Does not compute
In fact, it is *because* I consider you relevant that I think you bare a responsibility for what I view as the degradation of debate in this game.What it comes down to OsRavan, is that you don't like the analysis provided by Schatt, and fail to refute it... Which seems to make your blood boil. You go on a long rant without making a single rebuttal. That's kind of an accomplishment, I guess, but not a positive one!
To be more specific, at times I felt your argument was disingenious. For example, ofcourse everyone is playing for 'fun' (who wouldn't play a game for fun?), but to say entertainment and struggle and dominance don't combine is plain false. In fact, politics (and as such, CN - being a political simulator) is about struggle, and is about dominance. Debate is just part of the bigger whole, a means to achieve an end. That is by making your case, and as such convincing others that your frame is better than that of your opponent. In that sense, the more power one has, the more fun there is to be had. You are no different in that, and I would say it greatly explains the argument you're making here.
I'll leave the rest untouched and go back to my popcorn.
-
To say that what bros did is IC spying is not the whole story.
He breached security of someone else's forum illegitimately, and from the looks of it, multiple times. Clearly, bros is no saint. It's fairly obvious this was done intentional too, as the html page Roq dropped shows bros (smugly) commenting on the stuff he gathered.
-
[...response to Tim...]No worries, we have no issues with CoJ. Sitethief was just a well-respected member of our allliance once, that's what made this all the more sensitive and probably the reason for Tim's response here.
I really have nothing to say about the other arguments, so carry on.
-
Some questions for you, and if you answer them please do elaborate.
Would you characterize yourself as someone who plays Realpolitik or "moralist" in CN?
What is your biggest achievement?
What was the most influential event on your persona in CN?
What alliance would you join in case CoJ wouldn't exist (/disbanded)?
This is probably all for now. Good luck.
-
This blog has nothing to do with following treaties.
Ofcourse it does. The implication of your argument is that when you're on one 'side' because of a 'coalition' that yes, an alliance has to disregard treaties with alliances 'on the other side'. Even to the point where you'd (temporarily) consider them enemies.
And I know you're not mad, quite on the contrary. I just noticed how many words you had capitalized, which, as I'm sure you are aware, gives the impression of 'screaming' on the internet.
Do people not realize by now that starting a post with a "u mad" statement makes their post not worth reading?Such a wonderful retort, well done!
-
You sound mad bro.
Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.
-
Schatt, maybe you should use an image of Sherlock Holmes as your avatar.
-
FOK did have a treaty with ODN.
Indeed.
At one point we were even that close we were thinking about upgrading it.
-
Kyaris, this was a well written post, and I agree with most all of it.
The Just War Theory is interesting and something I intended to write about, but unfortunately I haven't been able to yet because of RL. I'll keep this blog in mind the next time I'm going to write about International Relations.
-
At this point, Kerberos Nexus has more credibility than you.Ohh, someone call the firedepartment, it's a sick burn!
-
Love the video, thanks for sharing.
-
Thanks to all of you who have responded.
I will write a response to some of your criticism later this week, when I have spare time.
-
I get really tired of the morality=pacifist falsehood. Most people regard myself as a moralist and CoJ as a moralist AA. We have 3 optional treaties and we have been in every war that involved any of those three AAs, and in between that we've got in between GOONS and a couple micros without any guarantee of backup, as well as convening a coalition to discuss entry into the GOONS-Ninjas war.
Everyone wants to pigeonhole whole groups of people into their prejudicial stereotypes. Get over it, the world is bigger than "moralist" and "people doing something."
If your only idea of doing something is shooting at things non-stop, then stop playing this geo-political simulator and buy a copy of a first person shooter.
You seem to misunderstand me, I have never said morality equals pacifism, although I admit I feel like it comes close at times.
And honestly, I said right in the beginning that I believe there must be diversity in this world, and to narrow it down to moralist versus people who do things isn't of my doing. Ofcourse moralists are doing something also, see my reply to W_C.
Furthermore, I am perfectly fine with CN, but thank you for your concern.
i am quite amused at the sudden "war is good" attitude that is prevalent from the same people who while NPO was top dog was all about "war is ebil".
Why don't you prove to me how I ever objected to war, or thought of it as "ebil"?
Please don't return in this topic before you do, because you're not really contributing to the debate.
There are two aspects of this game for me. Warring, and preparing to war. Everything I do is in regards for the next war. There is no other reason to play this game other than to prepare yourself for when the next war comes, be that politically, economically, or militarily. And that is why the game is always fun for me. If people started appreciating the warring aspect of the game more, people would have a lot more fun. Appreciate those who start wars, because without them, you would have an incredibly boring game. Stop blaming the people making things complicated and fun for ruining the game, when if anything, they're saving it.
I disagree with the latter part, but I find the rest of this quote to be true and worthy of reposting.
If the 'lulz' or 'srs bsns' alliances control the whole game, it stops being fun.Agreed!
-
Before I proceed, I want to thank all of you who commented on this, mostly in a well thought out manner too! That makes writing such a text worth it.
Now, I will try to answer you all, but please forgive me if I forget you or don't answer directly as I will try to focus on the main counterpoints offered by people.
Here goes.
[...]
without such an expansion of the gameplay itself, all of the 'politics' is just posturing. i still continue to play because i enjoy the company of my alliance mates - the game is currently just the water cooler to hang out around.
And you're not alone in that.
Wow - so much to comment on. It's all well written, but you start from some basic assumptions that not everyone would agree with in the least.
Thank you for the compliment White Chocolate, but understand that provocation is necessary to spark debate.
[...point 1...]That's all true, we're limited in the way we can fight wars and rule our nations. For those who don't want to be involved in politics and war there are neutral alliances though, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It just means the rest of the story doesn't apply to you, since this was meant for those who do participate in politics on Bob.
...point 2...What is justice to you is injustice to someone else. I can understand that people hold other values then mine in high regard, and I certainly don't think I can say one is better then the other (or "good" or "evil"), but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that there is anything else besides the quest for power, even for the "moralists" among us, ingame. To quote myself from another topic on this issue:
"Morality comes into play when one feels there's a need to appeal to the emotions of others. Moralists basically use the weakness of others to further their own political goals. They themselves think their cause is 'just', or even 'holy', but what moralists forget is that they, much like those who they are criticizing, are simply trying to make the rest of the world submit to their norms. Their method to gain power is thus simply more of a deceitful one."
...point 3...Alright, a couple of points to consider.
The reason why war is inevitable for those who participate in politics (please keep this one condition in mind, because that's an important one that I included in the original text) is that politics is about wielding and increasing one's power. The probability that you'll go to war will only increase the longer you don't, as eventually your interests will clash with those of others.
Only neutrals have no interests in the political game, and thus run the least of risk (yes, there still is a risk!) being dragged into a war.
Furthermore, you have to disconnect justice from action. The point of this blog was to attack the idea that aggression equals injustice and is "bad", while defending equals justice and is "good". So I made the point that aggression is not per se war: it can be lots of things besides that. War only doesn't determine whether one is an aggressor or defender. This all means that there's also the possibility of justifiable aggression, and injustifiable defense.
As to your example, since you declared war, they have everything to do with you. You simply skipped the diplomacy part, or more accurate, switched position of the two events in the timeline. But even before that, it holds true. It is simple, as an alliance you have to consider everyone not allied or befriended to you as hostile. The party you attacked in this case has failed to recognize a future threat to their alliance and act accordingly, so that means they have failed in their diplomacy and wielding their power. The statement stands.
[...point 4...]Yes, there are different standards as to what is a (legit) CB, not one that all can agree on. You just reinforced my point. Because of this fact, it means that there isn't something like "good or evil" that one can objectively labeled as, or a particular action that can objectively been seen as either "aggressive or defensive". We only have perception.
Aggression does make the politics go round, remember the one condition I told you of earlier?
In politics, it is impossible to be all defensive because you have interests you want to look after. This by definition will obstruct others in their abilities and interests, and thus is aggressive to them.
[...]
Arguing is a kind of warfare. You try to master your opponent, and convince him to agree with you.
[...]
For the first point, see my reply to Haf.
Second, I think that isn't a wrong comparison to be quite honest, but even during musical chairs you have to put in some effort to gain what you want. You can't expect to be granted a seat don't you agree?
I wouldn't argue this myself in this specific case (DH-NPO), but I think it's important to note that if you accept that previous history counts, then that's enough to say the attack wasn't "unprovoked".
Third, you are making the same mistake White_chocolate did. Aggression does not equal solely violence, does not equal war. See my reply to her (I assume W_C is female).
I will agree with you however that the bad label it now has is because of the history and tradition on Planet Bob. Personally, I hope that'll change, that we'll get rid of that taboo.
[...]
I hear you.
Unfortunately I have only experienced the Karma war of those you mentioned, but it was possibly the best time I have ever had in this game. The whole lead up to it and the climax, it simply had everything I think what makes CN the unique game it can be.
-
The simple fact of the matter is that multi-polarity is a lie.
!@#$, you stole my thunder Schatt. I was going to write a blog on multipolarity, with this point as the central argument.
edit: my arguments are somewhat different from Triyun's and yours though. I might just do it anyway.
-
I don't believe that is the point of this conversation. I believe the point is sending out a RoH because an Alliance didn't post a DoW even though that Alliance posting the RoH hadn't posted a DoW on all of their targets. What is that "H" word that was very popular a couple weeks back?
No.
The RoH was posted because ML insisted that the Umb/MK nations were going to be treated as rogues, whereas Umb/MK made clear those attacks were government sanctioned, and that attacks on Umb/MK by ML would be treated as an alliance wide war. ML decided to go with it anyway, as is their right ofcourse.
Come on, it isn't that hard to read the OP of that thread.
As for the "H" word, hollow maybe?
-
Good retort.
It is, actually.
Posting a DoW is nothing more then a formality, maybe even a gesture to the other party and the onlooking world as a whole.
Ofcourse this comes from traditions and the law of war in real life, but most people wouldn't know what that even is, so why bother.
-
I'm a cynic and I told them I understood their confusion, but that they just have to understand that MK is bored and wants to burn down the world and that doesn't include following 4 yrs of tradition surrouning formal declarations and war and treaties.
To be honest Schatt, most of the traditions here on Bob make zero sense.
It takes a lot of creativity to go with the rules as they are established here.
This is the part that irks me the most. MK is really insulting our intelligence with this little maneuver. With the undeclared wars, they're hoping they can avoid activating the treaties of the people they attack, and with the "recognitions of hostilities," they seem to think the rest of the world will see their wars as defensive.
I dearly hope that nobody in CN is stupid enough to see this situation in the way that MK would like us to.
For one, these kind of things have always occurred during war.
Second, I doubt they are really in need for anyones sympathy, let alone they need to portray themselves as the defender.
-
Supremacy clauses are only relevant if all parties wish to follow through with them. You and I both know their functionality is only as important as the intention of the treaty partner. For example with regards to both MHAs permanent alliances with Gremlins and the NPO they did not follow through with them. Wording has very little relevancy compared to a relationship of reciprocity.
This is true in a non-legal sense, but I really doubt you wouldn't argue alliances not following it. Now I am curious though. Since one doesn't have to follow the legal rules anymore, would you then also support an alliance that doesn't call on a treaty when attacking another alliance? There can be reasons to do such a thing, take the Sparta DoW for instance in this war.
It would be fine, if one of new Heg's CBs against the NPO was that it wasn't following the treaty chain into the Polar conflict. Now if you actually believe that you guys weren't being outrageous aggressors in that conflict why in gods name would you begrudge the NPO for not entering.
I think if you didn't want to become involved in this conflict, you should have proclaimed neutrality in a public announcement. That you didn't leads people to think you're going to uphold written agreements.
Also, I would centainly not begrudge the NPO for not entering, on the contrary. I would have supported your move to declare neutrality in this conflict. This relates to your multipolarity argument by the way. If you're making a call on people to establish a more multipolar world, this would have been your chance to lead the way!
But you didn't. I somehow feel that your call is therefore nothing more then an attempt to keep hidden that the NPO had little intention of not entering the war (something that can't be verified ofcourse since there's almost no way telling anymore if this would be the case) and are merely using the argument to discredit your opponents. Which is fine, we see propaganda from every corner and alliance on Bob. Some of us won't buy it, however.
Not what was I've heard. What I have heard is that under duress only specific NEW allies were kept out of the fight.
It is right in the OP of the topic made by Derwood.
Go check it out.
If New Heg actually wanted an entertaining war or one which would have created multi polarity they would have allowed for the NEW fight to happen rather than this one. This one is very narrowly focused on warring the least connected parts of the cyber verse rather than a war between the New Heg Blocs.
Well, for one I don't think you can state with certainty that all alliances on my side wanted (or want) an 'entertaining' war. How would you define that anyway? Some of us may be only in to defend allies, others are in it to win and to reach certain goals. I have heard little about the intention to further multipolarity.
Second, if you really believe alliances want to fight allies, allies of allies, or just friends, and even go as far to engeneer such a situation, you are far gone. Be honest here, nobody wants this kind of situation to occur. Or should I expect the NPO to enjoy fighting allies of its treatypartners with a manufactured CB?
Azaghul a prominent leader in MK, just stated in his doctrine on war that one of the benefits of Karma was multi polarity, multi polar systems are systems in which there are more than two power polls which shift flexibly to check and counter check each other's power. In such a system producing curb stomps is far far more difficult than it is under the current system. The current system has functional results which are much closer to unipolarity.
The functional results may be closer to unipolarity, but it definitely isn't. I have already given you the example of SF, but what to think of Duckroll? They aren't involved, and likely won't be at all. This war, as the sides are currently lined up, isn't a curbstomp as we know them from the Q days. You see the sides are more 'even' then they ever have been in the past, so I will agree with you that multipolarity definitely helps preventing such things from happening again.
Really, I do think you can agree with me on this, that the world established after Karma is multipolar.
Different positions within SF, but the overall trend in SF is to keep unipolarity, embarrassingly so in fact. Others in SF preempted ROKs declaration for Polar so that they would preserve the unipolar system.
This is awkward. So now RoK isn't part of the unipolar system, but the rest of SF is.
I think it is better proof of the opposite, that there is no such thing as 'unipolarity' in the way you described it, or probably better for you to accept, that SF as a whole isn't part of it.
This also opens up the possiblity of other reasons for alliances to act the way they do. Since there is no unipolar system, there can't be the need to preserve it. Rather they do so because of an obligation, much like why RoK defended NpO, while others in SF had other obligations.
The SF situation is kind of complex, I'll give you that, and I certainly can't speak for them. This is just one of many views on this situation.
It does not in the least guarantee that. It only guarantees it in the short term so as to keep there from being an actual tough fight on their hands. Polar had been part of MKs system of allies and was subsequently ostracized for speaking out against some of the rather outrageous practices which MK had under taken. They were then hit by PB.
To my knowledge MK dropped all their treaties with the Great Treaty Reset, so it wasn't just NpO, let alone that they were dropped because NpO spoke out against MK. I'm wondering, what are you referencing to when talking about the 'speaking out against some of the rather outrageous practices by MK' part? Because I can't think of anything, or how it would relate to the argument.
You may have actually had a minor point here if MK had attacked NpO. But they didn't, as you said yourself, and even more so, they aren't a member of PB. It was VE and allies that attacked the NpO, with a CB that has been debated to death. I suggest we don't do that here again though, as that would divert from the subject.
MHA by speaking out against unjustified wars is a very good candidate to get hit next.Sorry, I can't resist saying that you of all people should know, right?!
But on a more serious note, I don't agree. We can speculate ofcourse, but as I said, there are multiple ways to go about things. So even if you were correct in your assertion that we have unipolarity (which, by the way I just realized, can't be true as that implies a hegemon; and there is no such alliance right now present on this world) there is no guarantee it would be used in the same way as the NPO centered hegemony.
-
Uh, not that accurate to be fair.
You conveniently forget about Q's supremacy clause, which kind of voids this argument entirely.As a witness to the internal workings of that bloc on its highest level, the members of that bloc maintained a much more diverse range of ties than New Heg currently does. [...] Yet people claim that multi polarity did not exist under the old system. They are of course right.So the blocs you mention were nothing but tools to Q, actually.
A couple of points.Now some may say that the opportunity presented itself and these aggressors simply decided this was the time to launch a war, any war. This is also false. The NEW conflict was one where there were direct treaty obligations (1) for the current Heg to get involved on opposing sides of the conflict (does that sound familiar). What did they do? They pressured NEW (2) into not calling in their Heg allies and only calling in their allies who could engineer (3) a series of events to force the Orders into the war. If multi-polarity was truly the goal, or if a truly challenging war (4) was the goal, the most logical thing to do would have been to have a war where the ruling blocs were on opposing sides. Instead this scenario was one that the New Heg forces sought to avoid at all possible cost. They only wanted a fight they were sure to win. One must wonder how this is at all different from curbstomps that characterized the previous hegemony?1. How exactly? I don't believe any of NEWs allies were obliged to help them in their agressive war. So they sat it out, which is perfectly fine.
2. I seem to recall that NEW told all of it's allies it wouldn't need assistence.
3. What? Please expand on this argument.
4. I'm not sure where all of this nonsense comes from. It's a given that we will never on this world fight an 'even' war, and I don't think that's a bad thing either.
As for the multipolarity argument, you can see SF alliances taking different positions in this war. How would you explain that? According to you, this isn't possible, because they are part of some unipolar system which would prevent it from happening.
NPO Hegemony is long buried, but a new much more virulent and insidious hegemony exists today.I admit, this made me laugh, although I'm not sure if that was intentional.
It will ultimately go through the same self-destructive cycle as the old hegemony, slowly killing off allies. I am sure that if Doomhouse is successful at destroying the Orders, then over spring break or summer break they’ll be coming for MHA, FARK, or Duckroll next. The pattern will continue eventually spreading to the weakest of the current Heg blocs. They will continue to lie about multipolarity while they launch unjustified steam rolls, seeking to divide and kill opposition over time. The attacks on the NpO, a former MK ally, are proof of this. The time has come to stand up and oppose it and usher in true multi-polarity. This need not be a moral thing to do, but a function of pure practicality for any alliance which wishes to maintain some degree of independence or security.So you think the current hegemony, if it exists in the way you described earlier, is of the same character as the NPO one. I'm not seeing why this would be the case. Your way isn't the only way.
And frankly, if we take your version of the NEW incident to be true, it is pretty much guaranteed that MHA, Fark, Duckroll won't be rolled.
-
It's worth mentioning that everyone on that list is from before the Karma war.
Where's the new generation of leaders?
Well, there aren't a whole lot of alliances founded after the Karma war that were succesful, and given the fact that most leaders never leave their spot in government it is tough for new people to show what they're worth.
I'd mention Sardonic as someone who is quite influential and capable, but yeah I'll admit that I can't think of someone beside him right now.
I certainly don't consider myself as one of them.
Well, if you're going to make this list with tiers, why not?
I think some leaders are truly exceptional, take Ivan or Archon for example. Most all of us will never reach that level.
But holding together your own alliance is tough enough, and any leader who is able to do that deserves at the very least to be mentioned as capable.
Also, people like GK, who has built a successful alliance (complete with haters. Hi MK
) out of scratch while pretty much losing every single war is impressive, no matter how you spin it. If you know of others who did that, they deserve a mention as well.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't have TOOL a whole lot of problems just a month or two ago? The TOOL of today isn't much of a powerhouse, at least that's how I see it.
Anyway, the point was that I thought that should GK be mentioned, other people would have to be as well.
-
You say there's a lack of 'leaders', yet you come up with 18 names, most of which have a lot of influence in this world or left their mark on it. And then you still forgot about a whole lot of other people.
I disagree, we have more then enough 'leaders' around here.
Also, what are your criteria to make it on that list? It seems weird that you mention GK for example, what has he done more then someone like a Roquentin, a Chefjoe or a Moo-cows, to name a few?
-
Right, I'm not going to spell it out for you.
I'm just happy for you that you've become enlightened. That's one person less who will complain about the lack of war in the game on these forums.
-
And I have no idea what you're talking about
I'm referring to you during the NEW-DF conflict.
) out of scratch while pretty much losing every single war is impressive, no matter how you spin it. If you know of others who did that, they deserve a mention as well.
RE: Miley
in Shadow's Vault
A blog by Schattenmann in General
Posted
American 'culture'.
Yeah, truly a blessing to our world.